Arlington Heights yesterday released not one but two economic impact reports on the village’s proposed Chicago Bears stadium: One commissioned by the team and carried out by consultants HR&A, and one commissioned by the village and carried out by consultants Hunden Partners. (There’s also a FAQ explaining the two reports.) Such reports do not have a glorious history, so how do these stack up?
HR&A’s Bears-commissioned report first:
- “As part of this analysis, HR&A worked closely with CSL International, a feasibility, business planning, and consulting firm specializing in sports and entertainment, to estimate the impacts of a Super Bowl in Arlington Heights as well as understand the economic benefits realized from major non-recurring events that Chicagoland currently does not host.“ CSL’s brand isn’t exactly “understanding” things, so we’re off to a bad start already.
- HR&A projects $10.9 billion in “one-time statewide economic impacts,” which just means that the project would involve building several billion dollars worth of stuff, plus a multiplier for when construction workers go and buy other stuff. Some of this spending would presumably involve things like steel that’s bought from out of state; HR&A doesn’t give any indication of how it calculated this number, though, so no way of knowing if this number is overblown or by how much.
- After the initial construction outlay, HR&A projects “$1.3 billion in net annual statewide economic impact and close to 9,000 permanent jobs” from the ongoing operations of the stadium and its surrounding development, resulting in $69.1 million a year in net new tax revenues for the state, county, and city. “Net” implies that this is spending that wouldn’t take place without the project — but there’s no indication that HR&A subtracted out spending that would be shifted from elsewhere in the state to the Arlington Heights site. Unless Bears ownership plans on spontaneously generating new Illinoisans, at least some of the spending at the new project will inevitably be cannibalized from elsewhere in the state.
- As for costs, “the Bears are seeking public funding for $855 million needed for district infrastructure,” notes HR&A, for such things as new highway ramps and moving a Metra commuter rail line. No funding source at all is given for this, but put next to those billions of dollars in projected revenues, $855 million is mere pocket change, right?
- Hosting a Super Bowl, reports HR&A, “would generate an additional $570 million in statewide economic impact and support close to 3,800 permanent jobs” — that’s right, permanent jobs from a one-week, one-time event, sure would like a methodology footnote on that one, but sadly none is forthcoming.
That’s all pretty sad, but also pretty par for the course for what a consultant like HR&A will typically put together for a client like the Bears: Add up all the money that may change hands at a stadium project, slap on a multiplier, and print impressively large numbers in impressively large type. But what about the village’s hired hands, did they do any better?
- Hunden’s report is just a three-page summary, so its findings are even more abbreviated than HR&A’s: The stadium project would “support” 5,400+ full-time equivalent jobs and $510.1 million in “net new tax impact” ($15.1m per year) over 40 years. Once again, there’s no indication of whether these numbers account for spending that would substitute for other spending that would take place without the stadium project — not to mention the opportunity cost of losing out on any spending that might take place if the old Arlington Park racetrack were redeveloped for something else.
- Then there’s this amazing chart on projected uses for a stadium, which starts with the remarkable claim that an NFL stadium would host 370 “events” a year, then wayyyyy at the bottom specifies what most of those events would actually consist of:
The FAQ, meanwhile, adds even more caveats:
- What about the added costs that would come with providing schools, police, fire, roads, and all the other stuff that a whole new mini-city would require? “Does this report include the impacts on Village services and infrastructure costs? No, it does not. Additional studies will consider the cost of Village services and infrastructure.”
- Likewise, the reports don’t attempt to estimate the cost of “megaproject” property tax breaks that the Bears are demanding from a so-far-uninterested state legislature, but don’t worry, that isn’t real money: “A Megaproject Bill does not exempt large-scale developers from paying taxes, give State money to private business, nor cost the State government any money.” While all this is technically true — the Bears developers wouldn’t be completely exempt from paying taxes, they would just get a large break on their tax bill, and the public money provided would come out of the village’s and county’s treasuries, not the state’s — the implication that this would present no cost to taxpayers is false.
All of these funny numbers matter a whole lot, and not just for PR purposes: The FAQ specifies that “The Village has always stated that it will not approve the project unless there is a net fiscal benefit — meaning the Village’s new revenues must exceed new expenses,” so how the costs and benefits of the project are calculated is hugely important. Unfortunately, the two consulting reports are pretty much useless for that: Asked for comment after looking them over, sports economist J.C. Bradbury called them “an incomprehensible mess of motivated nonsense.” If it’s the kind of nonsense that will potentially land them more than a billion dollars in new transportation infrastructure and tax breaks, though, the Bears owners will no doubt consider it consulting fees well spent.
“but there’s no indication that HR&A subtracted out spending that would be shifted from elsewhere in the state to the Arlington Heights site.”
I really wish this was highlighted more by the local media. The Arlington Heights site fronts a major expressway, is accessible by public transit and is in a village that by no reasonable metric can be considered “blighted”. To suggest that this site would sit vacant absent a Bears stadium is false, plain and simple.
My above comment was meant as a response to this
“not to mention the opportunity cost of losing out on any spending that might take place if the old Arlington Park racetrack were redeveloped for something else.”
With a major expressway and a triple track rail line adjacent to the Arlington Park Racetrack site, redevelopment possibilities are endless. Arlington Heights could become Mississauga 2.0, with building heights limited only by ORD and PWK traffic. A football stadium site is essentially wasted space 350 days a year.
Wasted?! Don’t make me tap the sign about the 350 days of “tours”! It’ll be like Disneyland, but with no rides, food or other people — just a vast empty building and instead of Mickey, Minnie and Goofy you’ll have Aramark workers with giant rings of keys.
I hope they sell weekly passes so I can bring the family and explore the magic of McCaskeyland every day.
Yes, counting every day a tour is conducted or bar mitzvah party is hosted is ridiculous, but are they really trying to say a Super Bowl or Final Four will be hosted every three years?
Detroit hasn’t hosted a Super Bowl since 2006, Indianapolis hasn’t hosted a Super Bowl since 2012, and Minneapolis hasn’t hosted a Super Bowl since 2018. Usually people like to go to warm places (Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, etc.) in February.
And “Major Boxing”? Does such a thing exist anymore? Maybe Jake Paul will fight a kangaroo.
There’s a fairly long history of new stadium construction “winning” you a single superbowl or BCS game. I’ve no doubt that SoFi will host multiple superbowls, as has/will Glendale and Jerryworld.
But most of the cities that build new facilities for NFL teams will get their one and only superbowl within a couple of years of opening and then never be considered again.
The superbowls in Detroit and Indianapolis being very good cases in point… attendees aren’t keen on spending early February in northern climes. Even if the stadium has a full roof, the rest of the host city does not.
Weirdly, Jerryworld has only hosted once – in 2011. LA, Atlanta, and even “San Francisco” are already scheduled to host their second. Are winters in Dallas that unpleasant, or do the other owners hate Jerry enough that they keep voting for other locations?
Mark – The NFL still has nightmares about that Dallas Super Bowl. Unexpected (poorly planned?) weather led to delays and cancellation of Super Bowl related events everywhere. The whole scenario is even used as a published case study for sport management/marketing students on “what not to do” by college students!
Dallas’s biggest issue during that horrible weather Super Bowl was that the events were so spread out. Now with the new Rangers stadium and surrounding facilities- their next one might be a little better.
From what I’ve heard from some regular Super Bowl attendees who work for some major NFL sponsors- Vegas was the best, everything was close, stadium, convention center, hotel. It was the easiest one they ever attended. I think the push will be for the Super Bowl footprint to be more compact with future hosts. This might take Dallas off the table, at least until Jerry World 2.0 is built.
Indeed, but I don’t think anyone seriously thinks JJ won’t get another Superbowl at some point. When is another matter.
You forgot lovely Minneapolis, with it’s subzero winters. Chicago, with it’s famous wind off Lake Michigan, is close behind. The NFL requires 70,000 fixed seats and 35,000 parking spaces within a mile to land a Supebowl. The 35,000 parking space requirement will be difficult, since essentially no parking would be available for Superbowl use within a mile of the stadium. 35,000 surface spaces would cover a huge portion of the site, and would sit empty as an eyesore 350 days a year.
The NFL has favored Miami, New Orleans and Los Angeles for Superbowls, and for good reason. Pleasant February weather, with no chance of snow, and plenty of hotels and cool stuff in the area, especially Bourbon Street. Add in Glendale, Las Vegas, Atlanta and Tampa, and the competition gets really tough. Maybe that’s why Jerry’s World hasn’t seen a second Superbowl.
Da Bears could have had a dome west of McCormick Place 30 years ago, but accepted a “renovated” Soldier Field. You got what you wanted, so live with it.
The Jersey Super Bowl was another infamous example of this. The NFL tried that once and dropped any future plans for a second like a snake shedding its skin.
The only other city that I can think of that has a chance of breaking into the Super Bowl rotation is Nashville, but Nash isn’t exactly a “t-shirts and shorts” type town during the winter, either.
While being part of the Super Bowl rotation is unlikely- there’s no doubt they’d be regular final 4 and wrestlemania destination.
Nothing is stopping Soldier Field from hosting WM and Summer Slams now. Metlife has hosted 2, and Lincoln Fin another WM in the Stadium era.
Stadium amenities should not be much of an issue with Orlando hosting a WM 10 years ago.
They would jump in the FF rotation but SoFi shows that having a nice breeze is worth more than the rotation.
Soldier Field is too small for wrestlemania- with the massive titantron and entrance ramp you’re looking at a configuration that seats 52,000 tops. That’s way too small for mania. Also the weather in April is a tad unpredictable.
TKO’s priorities are tax incentives/bribes, suitable stadiums, and ease of production. My guess is if Saudi Arabia is a true success in 2027 there will be a Vegas/Saudi/other cities 3 year type of rotation for the foreseeable future.
Shouldn’t proper economic impact studies also include the negative impacts of building a facility to attract events or entertainment options?
Having worked lots of construction projects in my youth (some quite large), I can tell you that where construction workers go the problems associated with high income temporary workers living away from home follow.
So, you see major impacts on social services, health systems, policing etc. And not ALL those impacts leave when the buildings are finished and the roving workers are gone… there tends to be a significant social hangover for the community (the kinds of social problems the project can bring/exacerbate tend to affect the locals and long term residents as well, sometimes more directly than others).
I’m not suggesting this is a reason to not build anything anywhere, but if we are calculating economic benefits… let’s make those calculations net of all drawbacks for the host city and it’s residents.
Can you clarify? You’re saying a bunch of construction workers come in to build something that hurts the community they are working in? Like they drink a lot and go to strip clubs etc?
Sure I can.
No, I’m saying when large numbers of construction workers arrive in communities to “build big”, some fairly serious problems follow.
If you look at any major industrial project, you tend to find that with the “money” that these projects bring to towns and cities, there are significant issues brought as well. The construction workers may or may not be able to afford the types of “entertainment” that follows the high paying work (be it drug availability and use, an increase in prostitution, violence etc).
For projects in major cities, these issues already exist in some form. That said, the influx of new money brings in considerably more… and those problems tend to affect not just the itinerant workers, but the locals as well.
It is certainly more prevalent when big construction projects come to smaller cities and towns, but it happens in larger centres too.
That is very much a negative that comes with certain types of megaprojects. It’s impact on the social safety net (such as it exists in some places) ought to be calculated. That’s what I’m saying.
Yesterday’s Sun Times report said 60,000 seats, fixed roof. So that would imply no Super Bowls. At that location they could host many high school games. But how much revenue does 5 to 10,000 people, mostly underage, generate. And those would not be new games. They’d just be games moved from existing HS fields. And until Soldier Field is gone it will be the preferred venue for international soccer. Any international game not involving Mexico would probably be fit at the new or old Fire stadiums.
Chicago isn’t in Texas, and except for Catholic schools, high school football attendance is minimal in most of the Chicago area. It would be hilarious to play a Buffalo Grove versus Rolling Meadows game in front of 59,900 empty seats.
Frisco IS in Texas and the local school district uses the practice JerryDome for some of its high school football games. They also use the local MLS stadium for more of their games. Even with the compulsory attendees of bands, dance teams, cheerleaders, etc, they’re lucky to draw 2500 butts in seats to games in venues that hold 12,000 and 20,000. The locker rooms, field turf, hi-def video replay boards, and luxury boxes may be “world class” for — I remind you — high school football, but it’s like playing the game in a mausoleum.
The Super Bowl in Vegas had like 61K.
Even when they go to LA they could do it in the Rose Bowl and have 30K more people than they have in Sofi. They charge more money per seat, so even fans who would go into debt to see their team in the Super Bowl can’t get in
I think now, the number of seats isn’t as important as the suites and other entertaining areas in and around the stadium. That’s why NFL will always do Superbowl at SoFi not the Rosebowl.
I don’t know why they’re touting this is as a good thing: “13 Mega events which could be hosted over a 40-year period” and 1.37M visitors from those events. Chicago’s annual tourism is over 50M people. So 1.37M in 40 years added to 2000M that were coming anyway. That’s almost a .07% increase!
I feel like my math has to be off here, but theirs undoubtedly is as well.
It’s Chicago. Tell them to pay for their own stadium if they think it’s necessary. The owners aren’t going to move the team, they’d instantly lose billions in market value, plus the NFL wouldn’t approve it anyway. Fans have the upper hand, time to flex.
In theory, they could go over the border to Gary, Indiana.
I take it you have BEEN to/thru Gary?
On that basis (that they ‘could’), they could move to rural Kentucky or West Virginia too. Or to Joliet or Cicero.
I stopped in once on my way to Chicago just to see Michael Jackson’s house. Yes. It’s a depressing wasteland, which would make land acquisition cheap. Also, Indiana has tried to lure the Bears there before. Recently, Indiana passed a bill this year to facilitate https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/hoosier-state-lawmakers-bill-lure-chicago-bears-northwest-indiana/
It’s the same distance as Arlington Heights.
As a Hoosier, Gary is a dump, but don’t stop my state from throwing money away on boondoggle just to stick it to Illinois.
Lake County Indiana has come up before. Hammond is only 15 miles from Soldier Field. And Indiana lawmakers have passed a bill to “study” luring the Bears. But I can’t see Indiana tax payers spending money to help a Chicago team when they already have one NFL stadium to pay for.
Do it, would be a closer drive than Arlington Heights for someone living downtown.
Clearly, with Chicago’s lovely February weather, a Superbowl in Arlington Heights is a one and done. With vastly better air service than most cities near Big 10 teams, let’s be optimistic and figure what an annual Big 10 championship is worth. Most of the original Big 10 teams have huge alumni bases in Chicago, so many of the fans will be local. When new far flung teams like USC play, then there will be lots of out of town fans. Take a USC vs Michigan or Ohio State championship, most Ohio State and Michigan fans will be local, or drive in and out quickly. Even if 30,000 fans fly in from California, that’s only 0.03% of annual traffic at Ohare and Midway. Another problem is the lack of hotels near Arlington Heights. Schaumburg and Ohare area hotels will quickly fill, and Downtown Chicago hotels will be inconvenient, at over 30 miles from Arlington Heights. 2 or 3 major event nights a year aren’t going to lead to more hotels, that will end up sitting empty for 360 nights a year. Even if the average fan spends $1000 beyond the ticket, $60 million is a drop in the bucket in a metro area with a trillion dollar economy. And all this only happens IF da Bears stadium becomes the permanent home of the Big 10 championship. Everything else mentioned is laughable.
A Big 10 championship game would be popular in Chicago, but the Big 10 is already sniffing around Las Vegas. Because nothing says college, tradition and protecting the student athlete like Las Vegas. The deal with Indianapolis expires in 2028. Might be a negotiating ploy, but the west coast teams would like it.
The basketball tournament is already set up for Vegas. Not even LA or Seattle. Las Vegas got to host it first.
I live 4 to 8 hours south of Chitown depending on traffic and which part. Lemme know when to stand outside to feel the impact. Hopefully it’s statelong as well as statewide.
Did either one of these studies happen to estimate how much in revenue would have been realized if they had kept that beautiful race track intact, brought in gaming (as was originally the plan), and increase the purse sizes, assuring a higher caliber of racing?
Arlington Park usually ran a few days a week, from April to October. Plans had also called for winterizing the facility to permit thoroughbred racing for nearly the entire year, meaning as many as 138 race dates in a year.
Another problem with the Arlington Heights location is a lack of major hotels nearby. The closest suitable hotels to host a team or the media are the Renaissance Schaumburg, 5 miles away and the Hyatt Regency O’hare over 15 miles away. Whether the old racetrack site ends up with an NFL stadium or not isn’t the number 1 issue, what other development goes on the site, like a convention hotel, is the main issue. Using the last large undeveloped site in the Northwest suburbs for a football stadium is a waste.